Jerome's Corruptions in the Vulgate

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 26 2005, 06:06 PM']RESPONSE:

Nope. A "definitive" teqching would have to do with the extrordinary magisterium. Not with the ordinary universal magisterium. They don't solemnly define stuff.
[right][snapback]660157[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Wrong.
[quote]"Consequently, when there has not been a judgement on a doctrine in the solemn form of a definition, but this doctrine, belonging to the inheritance of the depositum fidei, is taught by [b]the ordinary and universal Magisterium[/b], which necessarily includes the Pope, such a doctrine [b]is to be understood as having been set forth infallibly[/b]."
[i]Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the 'Professio fidei'[/i]
[b]Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith[/b][/quote]

[Laudate_Dominum]

Nice of you to make me look like a lazy bum with those fancy quotes. hehe. j/k
I just needed to tag out and you finished the round.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 26 2005, 06:01 PM']RESPONSE:

I'm not sure what connection you are making between usury and Jerome's bible, but it's always interesting to  try to follow your line of reasoning .
[right][snapback]660147[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
well, seeing as the topic of this thread is clearly Jerome's Corruptions in the Vulgate, I am simply assuming you are dillegently staying on topic...

this thread is not about usury. get over it and don't talk about it. this thread is about the Latin Vulgate. If you don't want to talk about the Vulgate, let this thread die.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='thedude' date='Jul 26 2005, 05:12 PM']Wrong.
[right][snapback]660170[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

No. Right as usual! Read again what you posted. And read ALL the words that are there this time:

"Consequently, when there HAS NOT BEEN a judgement on a doctrine in the solemn form of a definition, but this doctrine, belonging to the inheritance of the depositum fidei, is taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, which necessarily includes the Pope, such a doctrine is to be understood as having been set forth infallibly."
Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the 'Professio fidei'
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

NOTE: As I stated, there is no "definitive" statement involved with the ordinary universal magisterium. Reread "not been a judgement on a doctrine in the solemn form of definition."

Thus the prohibition against charging any interest and the approval of the moral legitimacy of slavery qualify as "infallible" teachings. Unfortunately, they were found to be in error and have changed.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 26 2005, 06:35 PM']RESPONSE:

No. Right as usual! Read again what you posted. And read ALL the words that are there this time:

"Consequently, when there HAS NOT BEEN a judgement on a doctrine in the solemn form of a definition, but this doctrine, belonging to the inheritance of the depositum fidei, is taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, which necessarily includes the Pope, such a doctrine is to be understood as having been set forth infallibly."
Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the 'Professio fidei'
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

NOTE:  As I stated, there is no "definitive" statement involved with the ordinary universal magisterium. Reread "not been a judgement on a doctrine in the solemn form of definition."

Thus the prohibition against charging any interest and the approval of the moral legitimacy of slavery qualify  as "infallible" teachings. Unfortunately, they were found to be in error and have changed.
[right][snapback]660193[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
nope, I don't think Jerome put that in the Bible either! I am especially confussed as to how you think he got the animated smiley: onto a piece of paper... zing
[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=36432"]Usury[/url]
[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=36698"]Slavery[/url]

THIS is about St. Jerome and the Latin Vulgate. If you don't want to keep talking about that, then stop posting in this thread.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Jul 26 2005, 05:17 PM']well, seeing as the topic of this thread is clearly Jerome's Corruptions in the Vulgate, I am simply assuming you are dillegently staying on topic...

this thread is not about usury.  get over it and don't talk about it.  this thread is about the Latin Vulgate.  If you don't want to talk about the Vulgate, let this thread die.
[right][snapback]660175[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Yes. We seem to have comingled threads. Since we have demonstrated Jerome's interpolations of the Bible, I guess we can end this thread. And since we have abundently demonstrated that formerly the Church taught that loaning for any interest was a sin, we can close down that thread too.

However, looking at how usury was treated in Jerome's Vulgare (English Douay Rheims) we find:

"Thou shalt not give him thy money upon usury, nor exact of him any increase of fruits." (Lev 25:37)

Even big Jerry got in on the condemnation of charging interest!

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 26 2005, 06:35 PM']RESPONSE:

No. Right as usual! Read again what you posted. And read ALL the words that are there this time:

"Consequently, when there HAS NOT BEEN a judgement on a doctrine in the solemn form of a definition, but this doctrine, belonging to the inheritance of the depositum fidei, is taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, which necessarily includes the Pope, such a doctrine is to be understood as having been set forth infallibly."
Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the 'Professio fidei'
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

NOTE:  As I stated, there is no "definitive" statement involved with the ordinary universal magisterium. Reread "not been a judgement on a doctrine in the solemn form of definition."

Thus the prohibition against charging any interest and the approval of the moral legitimacy of slavery qualify  as "infallible" teachings. Unfortunately, they were found to be in error and have changed.
[right][snapback]660193[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
And this changes things... how? Give up already. This is why a large amount of people here have ignored you, Les. You don't listen to us and outright ignore anything we say.

Edited July 26, 2005 by thedude

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 26 2005, 05:35 PM']RESPONSE:

No. Right as usual! Read again what you posted. And read ALL the words that are there this time:

"Consequently, when there HAS NOT BEEN a judgement on a doctrine in the solemn form of a definition, but this doctrine, belonging to the inheritance of the depositum fidei, is taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, which necessarily includes the Pope, such a doctrine is to be understood as having been set forth infallibly."
Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the 'Professio fidei'
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

NOTE:  As I stated, there is no "definitive" statement involved with the ordinary universal magisterium. Reread "not been a judgement on a doctrine in the solemn form of definition."

Thus the prohibition against charging any interest and the approval of the moral legitimacy of slavery qualify  as "infallible" teachings. Unfortunately, they were found to be in error and have changed.
[right][snapback]660193[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
a solemn definition refers to an act of the extraordinary magisterium. What this is saying is that even if something is not defined dogma, if it is a teaching o f the ordinary and universal magisterium, it is still infallible.
I think your faulty logic is rooted in a lack of understanding of Catholic terms. Nice try though.

[Mrvoll]

Looking at where the author of this thread got the Latin translation, the Douay-Rheims Bible, the errors could be of the english translation

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='Mrvoll' date='Jul 28 2005, 06:48 PM']Looking at where the author of this thread got the Latin translation, the Douay-Rheims Bible, the errors could be of the english translation
[right][snapback]662977[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
That's what we've been saying, but he can't admit when he's wrong. He can't even read Latin.